| Title |
Research Results: Preserving Newborn Blood Samples
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science Translational Medicine, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1126/scitranslmed.3004474 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michelle Huckaby Lewis, Michael E. Scheurer, Robert C. Green, Amy L. McGuire |
| Abstract |
Retention and use, without explicit parental permission, of residual dried blood samples from newborn screening has generated public controversy over concerns about violations of family privacy rights and loss of parental autonomy. The public debate about this issue has included little discussion about the destruction of a potentially valuable public resource that can be used for research that may yield improvements in public health. The research community must advocate for policies and infrastructure that promote retention of residual dried blood samples and their use in biomedical research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 11% |
| Canada | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 78% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 16 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 28% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 22% |
| Professor | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 39% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 22% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 6% |
| Energy | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 November 2017.
All research outputs
#1,513,841
of 24,796,076 outputs
Outputs from Science Translational Medicine
#2,518
of 5,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,359
of 188,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science Translational Medicine
#32
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,796,076 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,349 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 85.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 188,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.